Well, former Senator Bennett, though you were prominent at President
Obama's first inauguration, and then acting, one supposes, in the position
you did then, to show Republican Party good will, others (like myself) could see
through this "child" running for office (Obama). Here we have, a junior
Senator from Illinois, who had previously been a "community organizer",
and a junior senator who didn't even complete his first term as senator
before being elected to the presidency, and you (then, apparently) thought that
he could do the job, and you were showing a gracious welcome in helping organize
the inauguration.

Now, this time around, you are "dissing" on
his agenda, as expressed in his inauguration speech.

I called Obama a
"child" for the following reason—

"And I will give
children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them." —
Isaiah 3:4

"O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err,
and destroy the way of thy paths. —Isaiah 3:12

Others, like
myself, saw that immaturity of the candidate. I'll give Obama, his
"community organizer" skills helped him get elected twice. Kudos to him
on that. But at what price to our nation?

A very weak column by Mr. Bennett. It offers no solutions for Social Security,
and gives no explanation for our reduced use of green house gases.

I'm sure that Mr. Bennett could produce a thoughtful, well reasoned
analysis of these situations, but this editorial seems like a sour grapes
response to Mitt Romney's and the Republican candidates defeats in the
resent election!

"A very weak column by Mr. Bennett. It offers no
solutions for Social Security..."

It is not a retired
senator's job to find the solutions for social security. That job belongs
to the one calling himself a genius, and holding the office of the POTUS. Let
him figure it out. He thinks he has all the answers. Let him put it on the
table!

I see that although Senator Bennett was rejected, not by the public in general,
but by his own party in the primaries, he is sticking with the "Party of
No" creed firmly ensconced in the hearts of Republicans. After stating
their tired mantra "a massive wealth transfer is taking place" he then
trumpets the call from the right that the things the president proposed in his
inaugural address are unrealistic.

Some of those
"unrealistic" proposals included:

"But we have always
understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding
principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our
individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action."

"We understand that outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our
time. We must harness new ideas and technology to remake our government, revamp
our tax code, reform our schools, and empower our citizens with the skills they
need to work harder, learn more, and reach higher."

If those
concepts are unrealistic then we, as a nation, have little chance of enduring.
What is unrealistic is to assume we can continue to lead the world out of its
current condition when half our Congress gives up before they try.

The President's purpose was to inspire and he did that. I felt exhilarated
and ready to try again after listening to him. Obama's plan for the future
is the only realistic one: pay down the debt gradually while keeping the economy
upright and do SOMETHING to offset the coming climatic disasters.

The Bennett-Bush prescription was to fight useless wars and cut revenues at
the same time, and do NOTHING about climate change but make it worse. That was
truly unrealistic and we are already experiencing the catastrophic results of
that prescription.

It is confusing to me, why a state whose electorate is expected to be more
discerning than average, would crow about replacing this man with the Lee -
Chaffetz - Love crowd. Would it not be better to lead out in solving the
problems than just making a lot of irritating noises.

Let's don't miss the point or beg the question. Mr Bennett knows that
the President has a responsibility to exercise leadership in working WITH
Congress in coming up with plans to deal with these issues. As I recall Mr Obama
said he would do this during his campaign. Unfortunately. Mr Obama's
reverting to power politics/arm-twisting betrays those who expected him to live
up a promised higher ideal in this time of national crisis.

Ah come on Rob, Barack and his agenda unrealistic? Where do you get that from?
Since when was Barack's agenda unrealistic? Maybe since 2009? 16 trillion
and growing fast in debt - who cares? Just print more or tax more or borrow
more. Problem solved. We all opened our January pay checks to see LESS take home
pay so I guess that means we are all rich - right? Didn't Barack tell us
all in the middle class we were safe? NO TAX INCREASE? It should make you feel
great to know you are paying your fair share now and are numbered with the rich.
First time I have been rich in my life. Cool. Hey even my son - a Student at UVU
is rich because he got hit with the tax increase too. I guess anyone not on
welfare got a tax increase which means most of the folks who DIDN'T vote
for Barack. America is in BIG trouble and my guess is most don't have a
clue .... yet. They will soon!! Obama and his media are EXCELLENT
propagandist's and that apparently is what it takes these days to get
elected to national office in America going forward.

The majority in this country want BIG government, BIG dept and free stuff. That
is what elections are for - to give the people what they want. Well we got it
alright and we will get the consequences too which will make the financial
crisis of 2008 look like a bump in the road. That light you see is an on-coming
train folks!!! NUMBERS DON'T LIE... but liberals do.